the Steven P.J. Wood Senior Fellow and Vice President for Research and Publications

1.CBS Lectures McCain for Lowering Tone, His Hilton Ad 'Stupid'
The CBS Evening News on Wednesday night delivered a campaign story that was little more than a recitation of John McCain's supposed misdeeds in lowering the tone of the campaign as reporter Dean Reynolds criticized McCain for spending "three times as long chatting" with a college football team "as he did talking issues to workers at a cabinet-making company," took at shot at his access to journalists -- "the man who rides the Straight Talk Express took no questions from reporters" (as if Barack Obama takes questions every day) -- before highlighting how "McCain's own mother" said using Paris Hilton to insult Obama in an ad "was, quote, 'kind of stupid." Running a clip from Paris Hilton's mock ad in which she describes McCain as "that wrinkly white-haired guy," Reynolds decided: "And now it appears mother knows best."

2.Pew Poll Finds 'Obama Fatigue -- 48% Hearing Too Much About Him'
Could Obama's paparazzi end up being the doing of his presidential chances? According to poll released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, when asked the question, "How much have you been hearing about Barack Obama?" 48 percent selected the response "too much." Even 34 percent of Democrats agreed they were hearing "too much." These numbers compare to just 26 percent of the general public who say they have heard too much about John McCain, while 38 percent say they have not heard enough about the Arizona Senator. Even 26 percent of Democrats say they have heard "too little" about McCain.

3.CNN Airs Suskind's CIA Forgery Allegations and Impeachment Call
Wednesday's The Situation Room aired an interview of author Ron Suskind, who alleges in his new book that the Bush administration engaged in a "disinformation campaign" by forging documents in the lead-up to the Iraq war. This came a day after host Wolf Blitzer made the allegations in the book lead items on the program. Blitzer's Wednesday interview of Suskind aired in two separate segments in the 5 pm and 6 pm Eastern hour of CNN program. In his introduction to the first segment, the CNN host referred to "bombshell allegations against the Bush White House. A new book claiming, among other things, that it ordered -- yes, ordered the CIA to forge a letter drawing connections between Iraq and al Qaeda to justify the 2003 invasion." In his first question to Suskind, Blitzer referred to the author's charge that the "the alleged crimes of President Bush and Vice President Cheney are worse than Watergate." Suskind explained that "if, ultimately, in congressional hearings and whatnot -- if they're able to show that the White House directed the CIA -- as I show in the book with lots of testimony -- that the CIA was directed by the White House to do this disinformation campaign on this letter, there will be issues of legality that will be debated in terms of high crimes."

The CBS Evening News on Wednesday night delivered a campaign story that was little more than a recitation of John McCain's supposed misdeeds in lowering the tone of the campaign as reporter Dean Reynolds criticized McCain for spending "three times as long chatting" with a college football team "as he did talking issues to workers at a cabinet-making company," took at shot at his access to journalists -- "the man who rides the Straight Talk Express took no questions from reporters" (as if Barack Obama takes questions every day) -- before highlighting how "McCain's own mother" said using Paris Hilton to insult Obama in an ad "was, quote, 'kind of stupid." Running a clip from Paris Hilton's mock ad in which she describes McCain as "that wrinkly white-haired guy," Reynolds decided: "And now it appears mother knows best."

Earlier in the story, Reynolds recounted how a new CBS News poll found "seven out of ten" believe "the candidates are not addressing the issues that matter most to them. And that may be because they're hearing as much or more about persona as policies." After one clip of Obama attacking McCain, Reynolds lectured: "McCain's campaign has been playing offense much more aggressively than Obama and emphasizing style a bit more than ever over substance. Today at Marshall University, for example, McCain spent three times as long chatting with the Thundering Herd football team as he did talking issues to workers at a cabinet-making company. The man who rides the Straight Talk Express took no questions from reporters. Some Republicans wonder about the new approach. McCain's own mother said using Paris Hilton in this controversial ad to insult Obama was, quote, 'kind of stupid.'"

Anchor Katie Couric led Wednesday's newscast with the CBS News poll which put Obama up 45 to 39 percent over McCain, the identical result as the same survey a month earlier, so she stretched to find a new angle: "A new CBS News poll of registered voters is just out tonight, and it shows the Senator from Illinois ahead by six points, the same lead he had a month ago. But there is a big change in the poll, a swing towards Senator Obama by a key group of voters. We'll have more about that in a moment."

Following the piece from Reynolds, Couric turned to Jeff Greenfield to explain the "big change" he discovered in the poll: "If you define white working class by income, making less than $50,000 a year, Obama leads McCain by 12 points. But if you define them by education, those with less than a college degree, McCain leads by five points."

Only CBS on Wednesday night ran a story on the day's campaign events. The NBC Nightly News didn't touch the campaign and ABC's World News aired a piece on how potential vice presidential candidates are trying to campaign for the selection without harming their chances.

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide this transcript from the top of the Wednesday, August 6 CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC, IN OPENING TEASER: Tonight, a new CBS News poll finds key voters are moving from Senator McCain to Senator Obama. Who are they and why the change? And now suddenly, there's a new player in the campaign. PARIS HILTON IN MOCK TV AD: So thanks for the endorsement, white-haired, dude. ....

COURIC: Good evening, everyone. 90 days now till America elects a new President, and Democrat Barack Obama is holding on to a small lead over Republican John McCain. A new CBS News poll of registered voters is just out tonight, and it shows the Senator from Illinois ahead by six points, the same lead he had a month ago. But there is a big change in the poll, a swing towards Senator Obama by a key group of voters. We'll have more about that in a moment. But first, Dean Reynolds begins tonight's campaign '08 coverage.

DEAN REYNOLDS: With John McCain increasingly on offense and Barack Obama more and more on defense, the two candidates appear to be fighting each other to a standstill in their attempts to brand the other guy as the wrong choice. While our poll says registered voters want the candidates focusing more on domestic issues than foreign affairs- JOHN MCCAIN: It's time to get America's economy moving again. BARACK OBAMA: I think I laid out a plan for ending the age of oil in our time. REYNOLDS: -seven out of 10 of them say the candidates are not addressing the issues that matter most to them. And that may be because they're hearing as much or more about persona as policies. OBAMA TV AD: The original maverick or just more of the same? REYNOLDS: As for McCain, he's making a determined effort to turn Obama's popularity and enhanced world status into laugh lines. CHARLTON HESTON AS MOSES IN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS: Behold his mighty hands! REYNOLDS: McCain's campaign has been playing offense much more aggressively than Obama and emphasizing style a bit more than ever over substance. MCCAIN: And when we didn't act as a team, they broke us down. REYNOLDS: Today at Marshall University, for example, McCain spent three times as long chatting with the Thundering Herd football team as he did talking issues to workers at a cabinet-making company. The man who rides the Straight Talk Express took no questions from reporters. Some Republicans wonder about the new approach. McCain's own mother said using Paris Hilton in this controversial ad to insult Obama was, quote, "kind of stupid." ANNOUNCER IN MOCK TV AD: He's the biggest celebrity in the world. REYNOLDS: And now it appears mother knows best. ANNOUNCER IN MOCK AD: He's the oldest celebrity in the world. Like, super old. But is he ready to lead? REYNOLDS: This is Paris Hilton's response to McCain on the Internet. PARIS HILTON IN THE MOCK TV AD CLIP #1: That wrinkly white-haired guy used me in his campaign ad, which I guess means I'm running for President. HILTON CLIP #2: Okay, so here's my energy policy. Why don't we do a hybrid of both candidates' ideas. HILTON CLIP #3: Energy crisis solved. I'll see you at the debates, [word "bitches" bleeped]. REYNOLDS: Well, the McCain campaign said, and I think this was tongue in cheek, that the Paris Hilton idea of taking suggestions from both candidates proves that her energy plan is better than Barack Obama's. Katie?

COURIC: It keeps getting weirder and weirder. Dean Reynolds. Thank you, Dean. Jeff Greenfield is our senior political correspondent. And, Jeff, getting back to our new poll, it shows that Barack Obama is doing better among working class whites, but you've noticed a very interesting split in this group. GREENFIELD: It depends on how you define them. If you define white working class by income, making less than $50,000 a year, Obama leads McCain by 12 points. But if you define them by education, those with less than a college degree, McCain leads by five points. And Republicans over the years have done very well with working class voters in talking about culture and values rather than economics. Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry all suffered among these groups, and there's every indication the McCain campaign means to make that appeal to working class voters this time. COURIC: Because those candidates were portrayed as, kind of, "It's them against us and they don't understand our problems." GREENFIELD: Right, exactly. COURIC: Is that why the McCain campaign continues to use the celebrity moniker to describe Barack Obama? GREENFIELD: Oh, I think there's no doubt about it. These celebrities not only are richer. They lead more privileged lives. They think they're better than we are. Many celebrities are prominent liberals, and I think that's exactly the intention of that, to say Barack Obama thinks he's better than you are. I think that's very much the undertone of what they're doing. COURIC: All right, Jeff Greenfield. Jeff, thanks very much. GREENFIELD: You bet.

Could Obama's paparazzi end up being the doing of his presidential chances? According to poll released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, when asked the question, "How much have you been hearing about Barack Obama?" 48 percent selected the response "too much." Even 34 percent of Democrats agreed they were hearing "too much." These numbers compare to just 26 percent of the general public who say they have heard too much about John McCain, while 38 percent say they have not heard enough about the Arizona Senator. Even 26 percent of Democrats say they have heard "too little" about McCain.

Pew's "Summary of Findings" explained: "By a margin of 76% to 11% respondents in Pew's weekly News Interest Index survey named Obama over McCain as the candidate they have heard the most about in recent days. But the same poll also shows that the Democratic candidate's media dominance may not be working in his favor."

As for McCain, Pew learned: "In contrast, if anything, Pew's respondents said they want to hear more, not less about the Republican candidate. Just 26% in the poll said they had heard too much about McCain, while a larger number (38%) reported that they had heard too little about the putative Republican candidate."

Wednesday's The Situation Room aired an interview of author Ron Suskind, who alleges in his new book that the Bush administration engaged in a "disinformation campaign" by forging documents in the lead-up to the Iraq war. This came a day after host Wolf Blitzer made the allegations in the book lead items on the program. He announced Tuesday: "Shocking allegations about the President's determination to invade Iraq. A brand new book claims the White House forged a key piece of evidence and turned a blind eye to another. This hour, the book's bombshells and the administration's adamant denials." Blitzer's Wednesday interview of Suskind aired in two separate segments in the 5 pm and 6 pm Eastern hour of CNN program. In his introduction to the first segment, the CNN host referred to "bombshell allegations against the Bush White House. A new book claiming, among other things, that it ordered -- yes, ordered the CIA to forge a letter drawing connections between Iraq and al Qaeda to justify the 2003 invasion."

In his first question to Suskind, Blitzer referred to the author's charge that the "the alleged crimes of President Bush and Vice President Cheney are worse than Watergate." Suskind explained that "if, ultimately, in congressional hearings and whatnot -- if they're able to show that the White House directed the CIA -- as I show in the book with lots of testimony -- that the CIA was directed by the White House to do this disinformation campaign on this letter, there will be issues of legality that will be debated in terms of high crimes."

Blitzer did press Suskind to address denials made by CIA officials such as George Tenet with regards to the forgery charges: "Here's what George Tenet says, because this is a very specific charge that you make....Someone at the White House told him to get a letter forged, making this alleged connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Tenet said there was no such order from the White House 'to me nor to the best of my knowledge was anyone from CIA ever involved in any such effort.' Who ordered him to do so?" The CNN host also tried to get a direct answer out of the author to name who at the White House gave the supposed order. Suskind never got specific, and was generally vague as to the sources of his information.

One of Blitzer's questions did end up exposing Suskind's vehement anti-Bush viewpoint. Blitzer asked, "Why would anyone at the White House be dumb enough to write down on a piece of paper for George Tenet to go ahead and commit an illegal act?" Suskind answered: "At this point, in the history of this White House, frankly, Wolf, I'm not sure how you can even ask that question. There's a lot of things that happened in this White House over this period that people look back and say, 'exactly what were they thinking?'"

Despite Blitzer's direct questions to Suskind and pressing him at times, his program gave significant time to Suskind's allegations, giving them air time and credibility without checking their validity.

CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN all jumped Tuesday to publicize the claims in a new book by a left-wing journalist, Ron Suskind, that President Bush knew before the war Iraq had no WMD and that to justify the war the administration forged a letter to prove a connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda. In the morning, NBC's Today showcased an "exclusive" interview with Suskind as Meredith Vieira trumpeted the "new bombshell book that claims the White House deliberately misled the American public about the case for war in Iraq. The author, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist." CBS's Early Show ran a full story and Wolf Blitzer made it his lead on CNN's The Situation Room.

In the evening, the NBC Nightly News aired a full report while MSNBC's Countdown, not surprisingly, led with Keith Olbermann's "cable exclusive" with Suskind on what MSNBC described on screen as "WAR CRIME." NBC anchor Brian Williams saw "gasoline" being "thrown on a fire that's never really gone out," as if the media aren't pouring it, as he asserted "journalist Ron Suskind claims he has new evidence to show the case was more than a failure of intelligence -- it was, he writes, an out and out deception."

The full transcript of Wolf Blitzer's interview of Ron Suskind from the Wednesday, August 6 The Situation Room:

WOLF BLITZER: Bombshell allegations against the Bush White House. A new book claiming, among other things, that it ordered -- yes, ordered the CIA to forge a letter drawing connections between Iraq and al Qaeda to justify the 2003 invasion. BLITZER (from videotape): And joining us now, the author -- the Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Ron Suskind. The book, entitled, 'The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope In An Age of Extremism.' Ron, thanks very much for coming in. SUSKIND: My pleasure. BLITZER: You've caused quite a stir. But let me get you to explain why you think the alleged crimes of President Bush and Vice President Cheney are worse than Watergate. SUSKIND: Well, the way it's framed legally, Wolf, is that the CIA's charter says you cannot run disinformation campaigns on the American public. It's an amendment in 1991. It's in the statute. So that if, ultimately, in congressional hearings and whatnot, as they go forward -- and there's talk of that in Congress now -- if they're able to show that the White House directed the CIA -- as I show in the book with lots of testimony -- that the CIA was directed by the White House to do this disinformation campaign on this letter, there will be issues of legality that will be debated in terms of high crimes. BLITZER: And what you report in the book is that George Tenet, the then-CIA director, was at the White House after the war started. He was directed to go back to the CIA and forge a letter from the former head of Iraqi intelligence alleging that Muhammad Atta, one of the 9/11 ringleaders, was directly involved with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, which was a lie. SUSKIND: Absolutely, and also, that Saddam was actively buying yellowcake from Niger with the help of al Qaeda. That's the Habbush letter- BLITZER: Habbush, the former Iraqi intelligence chief? SUSKIND: Exactly, and it popped up publicly. Tom Brokaw, William Safire -- they all read stories or talked about it. And what's interesting is that that letter comes at the end of 2003 after all the explosions -- Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame during that year, and the testimony of those involved in this book -- and there's much of it in the book, on the record, much of it taped, is that George Tenet came back from a briefing at the White House, had it in his hand, the essential mission sheet, a memo, which said the CIA would carry forward the Habbush letter. Rob Richer remembered talking to Tenet about it- BLITZER: A former CIA officer- SUSKIND: I'm sorry, top official at CIA, used to be a deputy head of the clandestine service, head of the Mideast or Near East division. He remembers talking to Tenet about it. He also talked to John Maguire about it, who is also in the book, head of Iraq for the CIA. BLITZER: All right. Let's hold on for a second. Here's what George Tenet says, because this is a very specific charge that you make. He was at the White House. Someone at the White House told him to get a letter forged, making this alleged connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Tenet said there was no such order from the White House 'to me nor to the best of my knowledge was anyone from CIA ever involved in any such effort.' Who ordered him to do so? SUSKIND: In the book, it says simply, it comes from the White House. There is some speculation in the book by Rob Richer, as to where things were coming from at that point. But the specificity of the testimony in the book -- and there's a lot of it, is that it came from the White House, and frankly, at the White House, nobody accept senior-most officials give this sort of order. BLITZER: So, in terms of a specific person at the White House, you don't know who allegedly ordered George Tenet to forge this document? SUSKIND: What's in the book is direct testimony from the participants and that direct testimony says from the White House, and frankly, no one except senior-most officials at the White House would give George Tenet an order certainly like this. BLITZER: Why would he deny that flatly, George Tenet, as he does in this statement? SUSKIND: Well, what he says -- 'to the best of my knowledge.' I'm not sure what's going through George's head, frankly- BLITZER: Well, he said there was no such order from the White House to me. SUSKIND: To the best of my knowledge. BLITZER: Nor to the best of my knowledge- SUSKIND: There you go. BLITZER: -was anyone from CIA ever involved in such effort. SUSKIND: Okay. Now, the fact is that what I dealt with were the people who were actually involved directly in this situation, period. BLITZER: What do you mean, in drafting, in creating this document? SUSKIND: People have direct memory of receiving the letter, talking about it, discussing it, and passing it forward. BLITZER: Because Richer, in a statement that he released -- and I'll read it to you: 'I never received direction from George Tenet or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document from Habbash [sic] as outlined in Mr. Suskind's book. Further, today, (5 August 2008) I talked to John Maguire who has given me permission to state the following on his behalf. "I never received any instruction from then Chief/NE Rob Richer, or any other officer in my chain of command instructing me to fabricate such a letter. Further, I have no knowledge to the origins of the letter as to how it circulated in Iraq."' SUSKIND: Okay. That is in accordance -- what Maguire says with what is actually in the book. Maguire was leaving on his way back, so it wasn't in his chain of command. It was his successor who handled the letter. What's important to know is that, in terms of Maguire, he is not carrying through the letter to fruition. The book is absolutely in accord with what John Maguire said, and that statement doesn't even really deal with what's in the book about John Maguire. Now, when it comes to Rob Richer -- BLITZER: This is an illegal act if it's true. Why would anyone at the White House be dumb enough to write down on a piece of paper for George Tenet to go ahead and commit an illegal act? SUSKIND: At this point, in the history of this White House, frankly, Wolf, I'm not sure how you can even ask that question. There's a lot of things that happened in this White House over this period that people look back and say, 'exactly what were they thinking?' In this case, the reason it's in the book, as it is, it's from hour after hour of direct testimony from people who had first-hand knowledge of the situation. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the book, among the many disclosures. That's why it's there. Now, mind you, the reason the White House is so interested in this one disclosure, it's like a bridge between the CIA and the White House, and if that bridge isn't blown, there will be consequences, legal consequences potentially, and that's why their focus is really solely on that, not in the many other disclosures in the book. BLITZER: Because potentially this is a crime. BLITZER (live): And we're going to have a lot more of this interview with Ron Suskind coming up here in The Situation Room in the next hour. His explosive taped interviews -- will he make them public? I'll ask him, more in the interview, that's coming up. BLITZER (from videotape): Another explosive allegation or charge in the book is that the President of the United States knew for sure, based on what the head of Iraqi intelligence, who was working with the U.S. secretly- SUSKIND: Right. We paid him $5 million, right- BLITZER: -covertly, that there was absolutely no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yet, the President of the United States used an expletive, according to your book, and said, we're going to war anyhow. SUSKIND: I never say the President knew, by virtue of Habbush, the Iraqi intelligence chief, meeting with the British and essentially the British and the Americans for his information. What I show in the book is that the case for war was already a rickety structure by early 2003, in January, when Habbush- BLITZER: And the war started in March. SUSKIND: In March -- the Iraq intelligence chief arrives. We handled a secret mission. We conduct -- the Brits are the point of the spear. We set it up, and he meets again and again with the British intelligence leader chief and they talk it through, many meetings, many phone calls. What does Habbush say in January of 2003? He says there are no weapons of mass destruction. Now, there's debate in the CIA. Can we verify it? Is it denial and deception? All that is in the book. BLITZER: But that is what the Iraqis were saying publicly at the time. I remember interviewing Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister. He said they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. Why would they believe the Iraqi intelligence chief, because he was saying secretly to the U.S. what Iraqi leaders were saying publicly? SUSKIND: Well, you know, he was certainly a more credible witness, by far, than anyone who had spoken publicly or privately to the United States. He is their intelligence chief. He himself overseas whatever the biological program would be in the country [sic]. That's the way it works there. As well, he is in a secret back-channel mission with us to inform us. Now, what's interesting about it is, it's not just his information that there's no WMD. It's also -- and Richer talks about this, Maguire, too, and others -- he gives us the mind of Saddam Hussein, something we really didn't understand. The British talked about this, too, because the British head of intelligence and deputy head of intelligence... BLITZER: What Tenet and the others are saying now is, they say, you know what, he didn't have any evidence to back up what he was saying, that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. SUSKIND: Well, Richer deals right with that question in the book, because, of course, I asked him. He said, well, the problem was is that we essentially have Habbush having to prove the negative, prove that weapons he says don't exist actually don't exist. He says, we weren't very strident in helping him prove that point. Beyond that, what you have here is a situation, as Richer says, where we -- we helped them prove the negative -- we didn't help them, and we fell in behind them. BLITZER: All right. It looks like there's high interest on Capitol Hill right now, once they get back from their recess, opening up some investigation, some hearings. Will you cooperate? Will you release the audiotapes that you have from your various sources and help them get to the bottom of what's going on? SUSKIND: At this point, as a reporter for 25 years, I have never dumped tapes or notes to anybody. I am hesitant to do that. If someone were to call, I will deal with that at that moment. What's going to happen first, almost assuredly, is that people will be put under oath, with threat of perjury, in front of Congress to deal with all of these issues, all of the issues of Habbush, as well as other issues in the book. BLITZER: And if you're subpoenaed to make all your documents and stuff available, what do you do then, as a reporter? SUSKIND: Well, first, you talk to your lawyers and say, what should I do? And then you look at the broader national interests of the country, I suppose. BLITZER: You know, the question I have is, some of these people are now questioning your integrity, your reliability as a journalist. But you say you have the audiotapes to prove what you wrote in this book. Isn't it -- wouldn't it be in your inclination to just go ahead and release these audiotapes and say, you know what, here's the evidence? SUSKIND: I have worked with confidential sources, on the record, off the record, for many, many years, and I have always hesitated, and still hesitate to ever dump tapes. I deal with many people in background information, all sorts of things. I simply don't want, and, understandably as a reporter, people to go into that closed room. BLITZER: Based on everything you know, should the president be impeached? SUSKIND: Based on everything I know, based on the evidence in this book, and the direct testimony of people involved in many, many instances, there, I believe, should be further investigation, with the powers of government, subpoena power, congressional authority, which is something people have been asking for, for a very, very long time. BLITZER: Ron Suskind is the author of 'The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism.' Ron, thanks for coming in. SUSKIND: My pleasure.

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.